wal_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read, so the [READ] tag is largely redundant. The description does add value by enumerating what is reported (WAL position, level, size settings, archiver health), which is more than the annotation conveys. It does not discuss return format, thresholds, or health semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the resource list, then a compact Args block. No filler sentences. Slightly awkward that the docstring formatting implies a Python signature, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It names the reported dimensions but does not explain what healthy or unhealthy WAL/archiver output looks like, which an agent may need to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It clarifies that 'target' is a config target name and that omitting it uses the default, which adds real meaning beyond the bare anyOf/null schema. It stops short of stating what targets are available or how config targets are named.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource set – WAL position, level, size settings, and archiver health – with a clear [READ] verb tag. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like replication_status or overview. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource is specific enough to stand alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replication_status or overview. Usage is only implied by the resource names. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.